Firstly, one needs to understand that the difference between right and left implies the fundamental difference between bourgeois/owning-class/capitalist and proletarian/working-class/socialist interests.

This is the only definition of Left and Right that is not relativistic but is fixed in all places and times.

Its a mistake to confuse 20th century Liberalism, which advocates a program of secularism and broader personal liberties, with actual Leftism which is concerned with the economic well-being of the working-class.

Thus, we can axiomatically state that Right and Left is definitive of the economic interests of Bourgeois and Proletariat, while Liberal and Conservative is definitive of the social values and such stances operate independently of one another.

The thousands of ex-Communists who joined the ranks of the SA ( the so called Beefsteak Nazis ) did so in the early 1930s, before the Blood Purge, not during the brief period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact ( from September 1939 to June of 1941 ).

The reason that there was no organized Marxist resistance to the National Socialists is due to all of their leaders having been rounded up and put in concentration camps in the first days of the Hitler regime.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions".- Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Here is the key!

What class did Herr Hitler rule for?

It was neither the Bourgeois nor Proletariat but rather for a class (caste) of intermediate middle class pseudo-imperialists in a new society based on the old medieval feudal system.

Herr Hitlers entire program was geared toward strengthening the state in preparation for an impending war that was sure to come.

Reich Agricultural Minister, R. Walter Darré, confiscated only the bankrupt estates of East Prussia because they had defaulted on government loans.

This is drastically different than Soviet collectivization, .. i.e. no Marxist-based Socialism at work here.

In regards of any so-called middle-class, this whole talk of middle-class' is, and always has been, a Bourgeois obfuscation in that 'middle-class' is relative and does not define class in relation to the ownership of the means of production, .. thus, it's meaning is routinely shifted around to confuse the issues.

The common Marxist analysis of Fascism seems to be that it was a bourgeois movement being, in 'their' opinion, the last gasp of a failing middle-class in its desperate struggle to hold onto its position against the rising tide of the working class.

In short, this analysis is rather confused in that it refuses to define its terms, and thus becomes self-contradictory.

The fact that early NSDAP propaganda was leftist is well documented.

However, as noted earlier in the post, that portion of the party, .. the genuinely left wing faction was destroyed in the Blood Purge.

The fluidity of movement between the radical socialist movements is shown by the Ulm Garrison incident wherein three young Reichswehr junior officers, Liudin, Scheringer and Wendt were arrested in February of 1930 on charges of spreading Nazi ideology in the Army.

This became a cause célèbre, the Führer even coming to testify at their trial that the Nazi movement was one of strict legality, though despite this the three were convicted and sent to prison.

Upon their release from prison in 1931, however, two of the young officers deserted the NSDAP, Lt. Scheringer for the KPD and Lt. Wendt for Otto Strasser’s Black front.

Similarly, the paths of the von Salomons shows this same fluidity.

Franz Pfeffer von Salomon dropped the 'von Salomon' from his name to make it less Jewish sounding ( becoming Franz von Pfeffer ), was active in the NSDAP right from the start, and at one time was head of the SA.

His cousin, the writer and Freikorpskämpfer Ernst von Salomon, stayed aloof from the National Socialists as they did not fit his Prussian ideals, while his brother, Bruno von Salomon, was a prominent Communist.

The Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters ... Wasn't my party, at the time of which I'm speaking, composed of 90% left-wing elements? I needed men who could fight.". - (Herr Hitler speaking of the street battles in Germany in 1922, between the forces of National Socialism and Communism ),

Then, in the mid-1920's, Joseph Goebbels published an open letter to a Communist leader, in which he assured him that "National Socialism and Communism were really the same thing." .. declaring that "you and I are fighting one another, but we are not really enemies."

In another instance, Herr Hitler declared, "I have always given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once."

These former Communists were known, at the time, as 'Beefsteak Nazis', being Red on the inside and brown on the outside.

As late as February, 1941, Herr Hitler declared that , "basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same".

In reality Herr Hitler could make such a claim because he was working from his 'principle of allocation' which classifies systems by allocation of resources rather than by ownership.

Thus, though the German industrialists still owned their factories under Hitler, the system was 'Socialist' because all economic resources were allocated by the government.

In summary, there is indeed an element of Socialism within National Socialism ( as the term itself implies ), the key lies in understanding the extent of the Socialist principle at play in National Socialism.

He was very well spoken, intelligent and educated, a real asset for the American WN movement. He was banned for no reason, but thousands airheads and trolls, who do not contribute neither with insight, nor financially, are still here, distroying the good discussions and making us all look retarded

__________________

Those who are too weak to make a stand against reality have no choice but to obliterate themselves by identifying with it.

He was very well spoken, intelligent and educated, a real asset for the American WN movement. He was banned for no reason, but thousands airheads and trolls, who do not contribute neither with insight, nor financially, are still here, distroying the good discussions and making us all look retarded

He was very well spoken, intelligent and educated, a real asset for the American WN movement. He was banned for no reason, but thousands airheads and trolls, who do not contribute neither with insight, nor financially, are still here, distroying the good discussions and making us all look retarded

As far as being an asset I'm not so sure, for example he wrote this:

Quote:

Until this reactionary misunderstanding of National Socialism, as well as Third Reich nostalgia/emulation, ends, the revolutionary goals of National Socialism will never again manifest themselves.

I'm sorry but that is totally contradictory. I know a section of Nationalists adhere to the same principle that we must distance ourselves from the Third Reich to regain popularity among the masses, it just won't work.
How in the world can we attempt to explain the basics of National Socialism if we reject the forefathers of the movement? NS & the Third Reich are mutually inclusive, you cannot have NS without emulating Adolf Hitler's NSDAP.

He was very well spoken, intelligent and educated, a real asset for the American WN movement. He was banned for no reason, but thousands airheads and trolls, who do not contribute neither with insight, nor financially, are still here, distroying the good discussions and making us all look retarded

No one is ever "banned for no reason." That doesn't even make sense.

I just got through deleting one post and editing another of yours from the "More funny pictures" thread that all prominently featured a racial slur that both the Guidelines for posting and the first post in that thread also state are not wanted here.

So I'd recommend anyone reading your declaration of someone being banned for no reason consider the source. In your decrying those who make "us all look retarded" there, you misspelled "destroying" by the way. Not a big deal ultimately, only especially when making such a point as that, the admonition to "make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and capitalization" is one to heed in particular.

I think aggressive government intervention implies a disparaging of natural law. True right-wing is inseparable from the belief in natural law. In practice, national socialism seems to involve lots of interventions by men and intrusions into the natural order. So I agree with the original poster mostly. Nazis seems kind of leftist to me too.

Location: battling the enemies of Socialist Nationalism on SF since 2001-End the tyranny of technique, to overthrow the dominion of the machine, and to make technique and the machine once more servants instead of masters

Posts: 1,393

Re: National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortress Europe

The OP, PunksNotRed88, is one of the few SF ex members which I miss.

He was very well spoken, intelligent and educated, a real asset for the American WN movement. He was banned for no reason, but thousands airheads and trolls, who do not contribute neither with insight, nor financially, are still here, distroying the good discussions and making us all look retarded

I miss him as well .................And I will say this much and no more " pick your battles & know when to retreat"

__________________

When we look at the economic traitors in same light as the racial traitors, maybe then we will have a chance at a future for white children

Location: battling the enemies of Socialist Nationalism on SF since 2001-End the tyranny of technique, to overthrow the dominion of the machine, and to make technique and the machine once more servants instead of masters

Posts: 1,393

Re: National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerryman

Was the old Republic of South Africa considered National Socialist?

No . It was capitalist what form is debatable but it was most assuredly capitalist